Friday, July 13, 2007


Cornered, DuPont Refuses to Phase-Out Toxic-Teflon

It sounded good. In January of last year, DuPont and the EPA agreed on a voluntary “PFOA 2010/15 Stewardship Program.” The stated goal was to encourage DuPont and other companies to “work toward” eliminating perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its precursors from both industrial emissions and consumer items by 2015.

Many in the mainstream media were fooled too. They misunderstood the program, assuming that DuPont’s manufacturing of PFOA would end, as would the emissions from facilities and products. DuPont did not discourage this notion. But when the DuPont Council and our allies read the fine print on DuPont’s commitment, we saw the truth. Nowhere in its letter of “commitment” to EPA did DuPont agree to eliminate the production or use of PFOA. Instead, DuPont pledged to reduce emissions and establish “caps” on residuals in products. In other words, DuPont intended to continue to produce and use PFOA, not just over the next ten years, but indefinitely.

When we approached major shareholders with this information, we were surprised at how many of them agreed that DuPont’s “commitment” did not go far enough. For the most part, banks, brokerage firms and other financial institutions are not known for supporting Shareholder proposals with an environmental message. But at both the 2006 and 2007 Shareholders Meetings, nearly 25% of the total shareholders voted for our proposal and sent a clear message to DuPont that it needed to do more.

As the year wore on, the Council and our allies uncovered more PFOA contaminated communities and more DuPont workers with high levels of PFOA in their blood. We formed the DuPont Accountability Coalition and beat the drum demanding an end to DuPont's continuing PFOA pollution. The message was heard in state and federal agencies where PFOA investigations were initiated and new PFOA standards were set. The message was also heard in Wilmington.

In early February, DuPont announced it was developing alternative technologies that would allow it to “eliminate the need to make, buy or use PFOA by 2015.” Unfortunately, this new “commitment” like those of the past, appears to be more greenwashing and spin. It is still voluntary with no provisions to verify progress.

In fact, at this year’s shareholders meeting Chad Holliday claimed the company was making “progress” on reducing PFOA emissions and congratulated his team for finding “alternatives to PFOA.” But after avoiding nearly a dozen questions during the meeting on the company’s specific plan, Holliday offered us a short meeting afterwards with the company’s PFOA team. Then it became obvious to the Coalition members that DuPont was unwilling to make clear commitments and hedged on their abilities to even meet the 2015 goals. In addition, DuPont specifically refused to commit to verifiable reductions in the manufacture of PFOA leading up to its target elimination date.

The council and our allies believe DuPont must come totally clean if there is going to be progress and it must have an official meeting with the Coalition. DuPont’s commitments must include:



  • Double its efforts to find a safe substitute for PFOA

  • Phase-out PFOA much earlier than 2015

  • Eliminate production of products that can break down to PFOA

  • Allow third party oversight of its efforts

If DuPont is sincere in its commitment to address the widespread and growing problem of PFOA contamination, it will meet with the representatives of labor and environmental organizations to discuss their concerns in a more official manner. As of now, DuPont has refused to meet if the USW is present. It seems to us that DuPont believes that workers who have their blood contaminated with PFOA don’t deserve a voice. In the meantime, more communities throughout the country are beginning to discover they are the victims of DuPont’s pollution by this chemical.